25Aug/1025
Re: Yes, why do atheists “witness”?
A response to www.youtube.com Original video: www.youtube.com Video transcript: emptv.com Follow me: twitter.com facebook.com zinniajones.com
A response to www.youtube.com Original video: www.youtube.com Video transcript: emptv.com Follow me: twitter.com facebook.com zinniajones.com
August 21st, 2010 - 04:32
@ZJemptv Although I believe his beliefs are false, I wouldn’t call into question his rationality. But it wouldn’t undercut my belief in the external world. If you are right, do you really think that no one but people who have heard your argument are irrational to believe in the external world? Not to mention that your argument is viciously circular from both perspectives.
August 21st, 2010 - 04:35
@ZJemptv The solipsist would say the appearance is just an illusion of his mind. And thus it is indistinguishable from the real thing. We would see the exact same thing on both views.
But if you are willing to simply believe something for all intents and purposes, why not believe the whole picture of reality and accept objective moral values?
August 21st, 2010 - 04:38
@lifeandphilosophy It is viciously circular. That’s kind of the point. This isn’t my argument, it’s yours. You did propose that objective morality is seriously defined by whatever we think is right or wrong. You actually said it’s rational to believe this. The problem of different people having different morals, and having an equally “rational” basis to say you’re wrong as you have to say they’re wrong, is indeed totally circular. I think it’s because this is just a faulty concept of morality.
August 21st, 2010 - 04:40
@lifeandphilosophy “The solipsist would say the appearance is just an illusion of his mind. And thus it is indistinguishable from the real thing.”
How could his mind generate something “indistinguishable from the real thing” without having some kind of actual knowledge of “the real thing”? There would first have to *be* a “real thing”.
August 21st, 2010 - 04:41
@lifeandphilosophy “But if you are willing to simply believe something for all intents and purposes, why not believe the whole picture of reality and accept objective moral values?”
Because first, there’s no indication that objective moral values are even a part of reality, and second, if they were, then according to your view, they would be so incredibly inconsistent that they would be absolutely useless and unable to even serve their purpose.
August 21st, 2010 - 04:42
@ZJemptv I said your argument for the external world is viciously circular. However, I don’t think my argument is. It is not my view of knowledge that warrants the rationality of a belief, it is the experience itself which warrants the rationality. Now, arguing for belief in the external world is question begging, but its hard to see how direct perception of something is question begging. If my view is correct, people can know morality exists without knowing about my view of knowledge.
August 21st, 2010 - 04:47
@lifeandphilosophy “It is not my view of knowledge that warrants the rationality of a belief, it is the experience itself which warrants the rationality.”
And someone else’s experience “warrants the rationality” of their belief… and yet you end up with two entirely different beliefs that are both supposedly an accurate representation of “objective morality”. The most obvious answer: Your supposed rationality here really wasn’t rational.
August 21st, 2010 - 04:47
@ZJemptv The indication of their existence doesn’t come from my view of knowledge, it comes right from your perception. Your second objection confuses knowing a belief to be true and showing a belief to be true. My model is used to know morality is true, not to show my morality to people with contrary morality. That isn’t a job for the moral epistemologist, that is a job for the systematic ethicist.
Thus, I think you fundamental objection is based on a misunderstanding.
August 21st, 2010 - 04:50
@lifeandphilosophy Again, you cannot use arguments either way unless you already accept your given conclusion. Any attempt to debate this is meaningless.
Whether someone believes in the external world or not is simply a matter of someone’s cognitive functionality. If you are willing to just accept your cognitive functionality(itself a properly basic belief), then you can trust beliefs formed by your faculties.
August 21st, 2010 - 04:51
@lifeandphilosophy “The indication of their existence doesn’t come from my view of knowledge, it comes right from your perception.”
So you don’t know it, you just “perceive” it? Without knowing it? How does that work?
“My model is used to know morality is true, not to show my morality to people with contrary morality.”
So, even though you’re pretty assured you know what objective morality is, this means no telling people they shouldn’t rape because it’s objectively wrong?
August 21st, 2010 - 04:56
@zjemptv You confuse knowing with showing your belief to be true.We know something because we percieve it. It’s not my argument that will convince you in the end, I’m just here to rebut your various roadblocks to accepting your cogntive function. At the end of the day, you will believe in moral values because of your innate moral faculties.
How we show someone who disagrees is a distinct question.I would simply suggest we accept a ethical system that we can agree on based on common ground.
August 21st, 2010 - 04:59
@ZJemptv This is the same old objection we always get back to. My model is concerned with knowing moral values exist, not showing. In order to do that we would need some sort of system of ethics. Right now there are many options in contemporary philosophy. We would show our morality to be superior by appealing to these systems. Does this objection undercut our knwoing moral values? No more than our inability to demonstrate to the solipsist our belief in the external world undercuts that belief.
August 21st, 2010 - 05:21
@ZJemptv Remember what I originally intended to do. I am here to show you why you should believe in objective moral values.As long as you know that other peoples contrary perceptions doesn’t undercut your moral perception, I’m happy. I never intended to draw out a moral system to show your specific perceptions to be true. That is another topic altogether. I’m am only concerned with your rationally believing in objective moral values.
August 21st, 2010 - 05:23
@ZJemptv What exactly is this “moral faculty”. By faculty, I mean a belief forming mechanism that informs you of reality. Just like we have sense faculties and a mathematical faculties. When you attempt to answer a foundational moral question like, “is it wrong to kill children for pleasure”, your cognitive faculties istantly percieve and inform you the answer to your question. I would suggest it is akin to our faculties that produce beliefs concerned with modality.
August 21st, 2010 - 05:28
I’m tired and you haven’t responded for over 20 minutes. I’m going to go to bed. Thanks for the conversation. I can’t believe we were going at it for over two hours. whoa. I’m sure we will cross swords again in the future!
peace
August 22nd, 2010 - 06:30
american psycho..
August 22nd, 2010 - 15:06
I would like to hear a Christian’s explanation of how God created things, the actual creation process, how did he do it? How did God create the entire Universe out of nothing, since they say you can’t create something from nothing, yet they think their God can…I would really like them to explain away in their dogmatic haze.
August 23rd, 2010 - 16:31
i think will likes u
August 23rd, 2010 - 22:58
@ZJemptv, once again, astute, articulate, and fascinating as ever my friend!
August 23rd, 2010 - 22:59
@JOHNINCOLUMBUS, the most accurate image I’ve seen is in Family Guy when the “I Dream of Genie” girl just pops everything into existence. I honestly think that’s how some imagine it.
August 23rd, 2010 - 23:02
@lifeandphilosophy, aren’t all moral faculties not only internal, but external as well? One might say even entropic under certain circumstances. It’s been shown that children who suffer child abuse develop, quite often, morally inverted codes, in contrast to the majority of a first world society. Yet you have cases of people simply born to hurt. Jesse Pomeroy, for instance, had no objective moral compass. Killing three and mutilating the corpses, at the age of 14 I believe. Young children.
August 23rd, 2010 - 23:04
@lifeandphilosophy, then you have cases of people who have killed without regret early in life only to be rehabilitated and even going on to marry and have kids. Once known as a child-murderer, now a loving mother. Moral objectivity is a tricky subject, and some pscyhologists have referred to the serial-killer factor as “factor-x” as it is still somewhat of a mystery. More recently you have “Three Guys One Hammer” those guys filmed and murdered 21 people in a month. Can they sense rt from wrong?
August 23rd, 2010 - 23:59
@hoboboxerjoe – You’re probably dead on, after all it is the IMAGINARY MAN IN THE SKY….I love Family Guy! Seth Mac Farlane is a genius.
August 25th, 2010 - 08:46
Hey Zj. this has absolutely nothing to with anything youve probably just said. but i would like to say that your by far the hottest gay guy ive ever seen :D hahaha joking of course. Really though. i found your videos by sheer chance. and i have to say man i am definitely a fan.
August 25th, 2010 - 08:46
Hey Zj. this has absolutely nothing to with anything youve probably just said. but i would like to say that your by far the hottest gay guy ive ever seen :D hahaha joking of course. Really though. i found your videos by sheer chance. and i have to say man i am definitely a fan.